Most active commenters
  • Chris2048(6)
  • eveningcoffee(3)
  • rapind(3)

←back to thread

I spent two weeks delivering for Uber Eats and made $4.40 per hour

(www.breakit.se)
383 points imartin2k | 12 comments | 13 May 17 10:08 UTC | HN request time: 1.306s | source | bottom
Show context
fastball ◴[13 May 17 11:38 UTC] No.14330444[source]▶
I rode for UberEats for two weeks and made roughly £22 an hour.

To be fair, this was when they were just coming into London and offering crazy bonuses to steal market share from Deliveroo, but still, this isn't controversial - if someone pays you bad wages, don't work for them...

replies(2): >>14330546 #>>14330868 #
libeclipse ◴[13 May 17 12:13 UTC] No.14330546[source]▶
That's some solid advice, but for some people, that's simply not an option.

If you can't find work elsewhere, you'd rather work for pennies than for nothing.

replies(4): >>14330575 #>>14330657 #>>14330939 #>>14331172 #
Murkin ◴[13 May 17 12:35 UTC] No.14330657[source]▶
So its better that Uber didn't offer this job at all?
replies(5): >>14330666 #>>14330678 #>>14330774 #>>14332292 #>>14332681 #
jacobr ◴[13 May 17 12:44 UTC] No.14330678[source]▶
It would be better if they offered the job with reasonable wages and conditions. If consumers are not willing to pay enough for Uber to be able to offer this, they have a poor business model or are in the wrong market.

You could say the same about any regulation, if you cannot manufacture something at a reasonable price without polluting more than allowed, you need to change your prices or adjust your business model.

replies(3): >>14330779 #>>14330986 #>>14334509 #
Chris2048 ◴[13 May 17 13:11 UTC] No.14330779[source]▶
> It would be better if they offered the job with reasonable wages and condition

Out would be better if kfc rained from the sky, but that's not an option.

Why is their business model "poor"? If prices go up, so will what is considered a "reasonable" wage. What's a "reasonable" skillset that an employee must offer to get such a wage.

Difference with pollution, is that its fine to just not pollute. Just not employing makes the situation worse.

replies(2): >>14330869 #>>14331225 #
rocqua ◴[13 May 17 13:33 UTC] No.14330869[source]▶
A business model that requires paying wages that you can't live on, it seems reasonable to call that business model a net loss for society.
replies(2): >>14330951 #>>14331648 #
Chris2048 ◴[13 May 17 13:49 UTC] No.14330951[source]▶
So basically, its better that these workers be unemployed? Or you assume there will be an unlimited supply of alternate jobs available?
replies(3): >>14331605 #>>14331642 #>>14332210 #
1. eveningcoffee ◴[13 May 17 18:15 UTC] No.14332210[source]▶
Yes, it is better these people are unemployed and receive unemployment benefits until they manage to find a real job.

Because they are making the situation worse for everyone.

replies(1): >>14332371 #
2. Chris2048 ◴[13 May 17 18:50 UTC] No.14332371[source]▶
so your idea is necessarily tied to the existence of unemployment benefit.
replies(2): >>14332675 #>>14332773 #
3. rapind ◴[13 May 17 19:53 UTC] No.14332675[source]▶
When there exists a social net, isn't it obvious that the existence of poor costs money? Plus, that money disproportionately comes from the lower and middle class in the form of tax.

So in reality all you're doing with an underpaid gig economy is allowing corps to indirectly make money off of taxpayers instead of just the customers / companies involved in the service.

TLDR; You're paying a tax for someone else to get their food delivered.

replies(2): >>14333276 #>>14334527 #
4. eveningcoffee ◴[13 May 17 20:15 UTC] No.14332773[source]▶
The idea goes like this: drive to the bottom is not beneficial for the society as whole and therefore it is reasonable to establish some form of minimum wage.

As this prohibits very low paying jobs (i.e. better than nothing) then it would be fair to offer unemployment benefits in return.

replies(1): >>14333305 #
5. Chris2048 ◴[13 May 17 22:14 UTC] No.14333276{3}[source]▶
That's not true; if no one offered "underpaid" work we'd pay more tax, so that interpretation doesn't work.

What you don't understand is that whike "existence of poor costs money", underpaid jobs do not made people poor - you'd have to assume that if companies where held to a minimum wage, that they just pay that (and/or raise prices), rather than employ less.

replies(1): >>14336276 #
6. Chris2048 ◴[13 May 17 22:21 UTC] No.14333305{3}[source]▶
Which means you also have to control immigration so that you don't get too many poor immigrants on those benefits.

Now the same poor immigrants that would have suffered from a low wage, suffer from never entering the country in the first place, and suffering a low wage in their home country with no benefits.

replies(1): >>14335954 #
7. prostoalex ◴[14 May 17 06:27 UTC] No.14334527{3}[source]▶
Suppose one day gig economy companies all go out of business, and all their current workforce files for unemployment benefits.

Is my tax burden as a taxpayer going up or down?

replies(1): >>14335951 #
8. rapind ◴[14 May 17 15:22 UTC] No.14335951{4}[source]▶
Hard to say. What are they going to spend their unemployment benefits on? What is replacing the gig economy companies?
replies(1): >>14337525 #
9. eveningcoffee ◴[14 May 17 15:22 UTC] No.14335954{4}[source]▶
I really do not know why you bring the immigration into the question.
replies(1): >>14338559 #
10. rapind ◴[14 May 17 16:37 UTC] No.14336276{4}[source]▶
If companies are held to a minimum wage, then they'll pay it. Sure, maybe it becomes more cost effective to invest in technology that requires them to pay less people... but I would argue they are doing that already (especially in the context of Uber), regardless of whether it's gig or minimum wage.

Rich people don't buy more stuff in proportion to what they make. So the more money that moves from the lower and middle class, the less business opportunity you have. I'm not going to use 10 times more uber eats than someone who makes 10 times less than me.

It's not a hard problem to solve in theory. Just figure out how to move money the opposite direction and business will boom! It doesn't even have to be a socialist structure. Maybe we just tax companies for their external negative effects?

11. prostoalex ◴[14 May 17 20:55 UTC] No.14337525{5}[source]▶
> What is replacing the gig economy companies?

That one we do know without a crystal ball - taxi medallion systems and hotels.

12. Chris2048 ◴[15 May 17 01:43 UTC] No.14338559{5}[source]▶
Because it often drives the drive to the bottom